Ughala and Others v Laws Stores CC and Others (2645/2017) [2018] ZAECPEHC 7 (20 February 2018)

Ughala and Others v Laws Stores CC and Others (2645/2017) [2018] ZAECPEHC 7 (20 February 2018)

The court held that it does not have the discretion, either under Rule 45A or at common law, to set aside the execution of an eviction order after eviction has already occurred, where the underlying eviction order remains valid and binding. The applicants' dispossession was effected lawfully pursuant to a court order, and thus does not qualify for a spoliation remedy. Furthermore, an interim interdict cannot be granted to reverse completed conduct; it is only available to prevent future harm. The applicants failed to establish a prima facie right to reinstatement or any basis for the relief sought. The application was accordingly dismissed with costs.

Citation
[2018] ZAECPEHC 7
Parties
Applicant: Prince Chibueze Ughala; Applicant: Vuyisa Nika; Applicant: Susan Karshipa; Applicant: Yolladene Jacobs; Applicant: Davidene Killan; Applicant: Zhona Mngaza; Applicant: Sinazo Tayo; Applicant: Melissa Groots; Applicant: Asanda Siqongana; Applicant: Bonny Gobeni; Applicant: Chukwana Eze; Applicant: Simthandile Gola; Applicant: Sisanda Golimpi; Applicant: Mic Kylan; Applicant: Nomfusi Jilingisi; Applicant: Portia Blouw; Applicant: Sibongile Mtyeku; Applicant: Nomachire Jilingisi; Applicant: Lebohang Zaya; Applicant: Buntuzonke Ndalaleni; Applicant: Phillip Ola; Applicant: Pinky Kanti; Applicant: Fatima Moehape; Applicant: Happy Khumalo; Applicant: Hazel Njengele; Applicant: Cindy Logan; Respondent: Laws Stores CC; Respondent: Nelson Mandela Bay Metropolitan Municipality
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 February 2018
Case Number
2645/2017
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Interim Relief Pending Rescission of Eviction Order
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
JW Eksteen
Legal Topics
Eviction Proceedings, Urgent Interdict, Mandament Van Spolie, Stay of Execution, Rescission of Judgment
Land and Property Civil Procedure Eviction Proceedings Urgent Interdict Mandament Van Spolie Stay of Execution Rescission of Judgment

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Prince Chibueze Ughala

Applicant

Vuyisa Nika

Applicant

Susan Karshipa

Applicant

Yolladene Jacobs

Applicant

Davidene Killan

Applicant

Zhona Mngaza

Applicant

Sinazo Tayo

Applicant

Melissa Groots

Applicant

Asanda Siqongana

Applicant

Bonny Gobeni

Applicant

Chukwana Eze

Applicant

Simthandile Gola

Applicant

Sisanda Golimpi

Applicant

Mic Kylan

Applicant

Nomfusi Jilingisi

Applicant

Portia Blouw

Applicant

Sibongile Mtyeku

Applicant

Nomachire Jilingisi

Applicant

Lebohang Zaya

Applicant

Buntuzonke Ndalaleni

Applicant

Phillip Ola

Applicant

Pinky Kanti

Applicant

Fatima Moehape

Applicant

Happy Khumalo

Applicant

Hazel Njengele

Applicant

Cindy Logan

Applicant

Laws Stores CC

Respondent

Nelson Mandela Bay Metropolitan Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Interim Relief Pending Rescission of Eviction Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court can suspend or set aside the execution of an eviction order after eviction has occurred.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants are entitled to reinstatement to possession of the property pending rescission proceedings.
  3. 3 Whether the requirements for an interim interdict or spoliation order are met in circumstances where eviction was lawfully executed.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that it does not have the discretion, either under Rule 45A or at common law, to set aside the execution of an eviction order after eviction has already occurred, where the underlying eviction order remains valid and binding. The applicants' dispossession was effected lawfully pursuant to a court order, and thus does not qualify for a spoliation remedy. Furthermore, an interim interdict cannot be granted to reverse completed conduct; it is only available to prevent future harm. The applicants failed to establish a prima facie right to reinstatement or any basis for the relief sought. The application was accordingly dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.